Your arguments counter-points just consist of non-sequiturs and discussion-ending one-liners...

You're right. I'm too lazy to rehash what has already been quibbled a hundred times over. Nothing new is being said here. I do encourage you to go dig up those threads and read them, though.

In other words, you've been taught that preferential admissions is a good thing, but you can't think of an actual defense for it, or even open your mind to the fact that AA as currently structured is often morally questionable and counterproductive. Fair enough.

Not quite, champ. You just haven't blown me away yet.

And yet you still haven't provided an actual response for why it makes sense to favor privileged minorities over underprivileged whites/asians.

In other words, you've been taught that preferential admissions is a good thing, but you can't think of an actual defense for it, or even open your mind to the fact that AA as currently structured is often morally questionable and counterproductive. Fair enough.

No.

He (and me) likes to annoy you.

Simple.

Okay, so you guys can't think of an actual defense for the system as currently stuctured, AND like to annoy people. Fair enough.

Or they like to divert your attention by calling you a racist. These people aren't worth your time or effort. AA will be tested and struck soon enough - it is unconstitutional after all.

It's not my fault that your (and Lindbergh's) position is the one also occupied by racists. It's also not my fault that it's very difficult to tell the difference between what you say and what a racist would say. Contrast with, say, Ender Wiggin's long post a couple pages back in which he clearly outlines the reasons he should be against AA.

That's absurd. You insinuate that those holding the opposing position are racist because some racists support the opposing position?

Well, I'm sure Communists and Black Supremacists support AA, but you won't hear me attempting to equate you with those groups based solely on your position on AA.

Rather than attack someone's position on the basis of who else shares the position, why don't you attack the position by attacking its premises, conclusions, or by offering a convincing counter-argument?

Rather than attack someone's position on the basis of who else shares the position, why don't you attack the position by attacking its premises, conclusions, or by offering a convincing counter-argument?

If you don't believe that minorities face an unequal playing field, or that because of the color their skin, or being of a particular ethnicity or gender a minority faces quite a different set of circumstances, scrutiny, image, and self-identity, then no argument is going to matter to you.

If you don't believe that systematic discrimination has affected the lives of millions through no fault of their own, and you want to keep pointing to isolated "yeah buts," then there is nothing more we can say.

If you want to admit that there was systematic discrimination in the past, and that there is systematic discrimination currently, but argue that "two wrongs don't make a right" and wail that affirmative action is just "reverse discrimination," then you're misconstruing what affirmative action really is and what it is being used for, as well as ignoring the reality of the minority's current position in society (and the power dynamic therein).

Affirmative action is certainly not ideal, but as of right now it is necessary. Perhaps some of you have a better solution?

Rather than attack someone's position on the basis of who else shares the position, why don't you attack the position by attacking its premises, conclusions, or by offering a convincing counter-argument?

If you don't believe that minorities face an unequal playing field, or that because of the color their skin, or being of a particular ethnicity or gender a minority faces quite a different set of circumstances, scrutiny, image, and self-identity, then no argument is going to matter to you.

If you don't believe that systematic discrimination has affected the lives of millions through no fault of their own, and you want to keep pointing to isolated "yeah buts," then there is nothing more we can say.

If you want to admit that there was systematic discrimination in the past, and that there is systematic discrimination currently, but argue that "two wrongs don't make a right" and wail that affirmative action is just "reverse discrimination," then you're misconstruing what affirmative action really is and what it is being used for, as well as ignoring the reality of the minority's current position in society (and the power dynamic therein).

Affirmative action is certainly not ideal, but as of right now it is necessary. Perhaps some of you have a better solution?

If AA went beyond skin color and poor whites got a leg up the way the children of black doctors did, then I'd be all for it, but we all know that's not what happens. Can you actually say that minorities who go to great schools should get preference over white kids who went to poor schools? I mean really, AA isn't supposed to be about reparations, right? It's supposed to level the playing field. Oh yes I forgot, we need diversity in law school. Shouldn't it be diversity of thought rather than skin color? Do all minorities think the same? Do they all share the same experiences? Yes, you have experienced racism, but how does that equate to your LSAT score? Stereotype threat is laughable. What does the black kid who went to a great school bring to the table that austomatically equals uniqueness of thought? It's absurd and unfair. It really annoys me that being against something fundamentally so unfair makes me a racist...Remember the rather pretentious operaattorney called me Miss KKK...and that's Ms by the way, you sexist pig? I went to a great school with lots of minorities, we had the same education, so our LSAT score should be evaluated the same way...Unless of course everyone in favor of AA really thinks that minorities are less intelligent and that even with a great education they will come up short. If that's what you're saying, then shame on you.

Rather than attack someone's position on the basis of who else shares the position, why don't you attack the position by attacking its premises, conclusions, or by offering a convincing counter-argument?

If you don't believe that minorities face an unequal playing field, or that because of the color their skin, or being of a particular ethnicity or gender a minority faces quite a different set of circumstances, scrutiny, image, and self-identity, then no argument is going to matter to you.

If you don't believe that systematic discrimination has affected the lives of millions through no fault of their own, and you want to keep pointing to isolated "yeah buts," then there is nothing more we can say.

If you want to admit that there was systematic discrimination in the past, and that there is systematic discrimination currently, but argue that "two wrongs don't make a right" and wail that affirmative action is just "reverse discrimination," then you're misconstruing what affirmative action really is and what it is being used for, as well as ignoring the reality of the minority's current position in society (and the power dynamic therein).

Affirmative action is certainly not ideal, but as of right now it is necessary. Perhaps some of you have a better solution?

I've already proposed a better solution -- one that only benefits people who are actually disadvantaged by discrimination.

I'm amazed that you're so closed-minded and blinded on this issue that you can't even acknowledge that basic fact -- there's a difference between underprivileged and privileged minorities, just as there is between privileged and underprivileged whites. In light of that fact, treating everyone who has the same skin color identically, and treating different ethnicities differently simply because they're different ethnicities, simply makes no sense and cannot be justified -- no matter how much racism and discrimiation exists or existed in society. Especially since such inequitable treatment only increases said racism.

When exactly did liberals become more close-minded than conservatives anyway? 1978?

If you guys really can't think of any defenses for the current system, just admit it, instead of pointing to other links you're apparently embarrased to summarize. Or just stop posting. Either way, the truth appears obvious. There is no legitimate defense for granting privileged minorities advantages over underprivileged whites, and the system was simply created by privileged whites to assuage their guilt over their advantages.

Hopefully, the people in power will acknowledge this soon, and act accordingly.